Posted on 02/23/2006 6:13:09 PM PST by new yorker 77
The conventional wisdom on the Dubai Ports World deal seems to have shifted in the last 24 hours. In the blogosphere the focus has jumped from its initial target -- the agreement itself -- to a new and familiar one: President Bush. For instance, Glenn Reynolds has decided:
I don't think there's any real security issue here, but I think the Bush Administration needs to launch a full-bore effort to explain what's actually going on, something that they still haven't really mounted...
I will admit that my knee jerked on hearing this story, and that I should have waited to learn more before offering an opinion. In my defense, I'll note that I gathered more information and changed my mind. Still, mea culpa.
But (and this is a separate point from the merits of the decision, or of my take thereon) it wasn't just me -- there were an awful lot of knees jerking on this decision, and the White House, or somebody, should have foreseen that. That doesn't get me off the hook, of course, but it doesn't reflect well on them, either.
James Lileks retreats somewhat as well:
The Bush administration may well be in the right, but they have handled this poorly – the remarks about vetoing any Congressional efforts to block the sale may have been aimed at Congress, but they splashed right in the face of the voters. The crafty response would have been to acknowledge the worries, assure a complete and total review and disclosure, and let the facts speak for themselves.
Meanwhile Tim Cavanaugh offers examples of some points he thinks Bush should have made. Like Reynolds, he says the DPW deal "doesn't involve port security, and if opponents think there's a security risk they haven't provided any evidence for that." But according to Cavanaugh, Bush is in trouble because he was caught flat-footed and unprepared to argue such straightforward points. He asks:
Who could get out of this fix?
I'll tell you who: NAFTA-era Bill Clinton, that's who! Explaining stuff like this is what Bill Clinton lived for. Just think back to that Clintonian love of factoids, that congenial explanation of the benefits that you, the listener, will directly receive, that enthusiastic drive to get you to share the president's love of policy minutiae. Clinton was great at this stuff because, whatever else he was, he was a man of the people. He understood (as Bush does) the benefit of a barrier-free market that might leave, say, Dubai Ports World providing services to American harbors. And he knew that populist panics are stupid and almost always wrong. But unlike Bush, he realized that populist panics come from deep within people's hearts, and that you have to respect that.
Critics have raised some serious concerns over the DPW deal, and it is clear that Bush made a mistake by brushing off these concerns. To be sure, there is a strong opposition that will not be won over so easily on the merits of the agreement (see Malkin, Hewitt, Huffington). So far, though, it is the pundits who are doing the backtracking, not the President.
Posted by Nick Nordseth on February 23, 2006 04:45 PM
There isn't?
What you call afraid I call being smart enough to learn a lesson after it is taught to me. Maybe you need to learn it again.
You said New Yorkers cared about terrorism. I simply pointed out that one of your most vocal elected representatives doesn't have a particularly strong track record on the subject. And yes since that same elected representative is leading the charge against this sale, it has become, in small measure and for the purposes of our conversation, about her.
Wow!!!!!!
According to what you just stated, if a company from Iran had the contract there would be nothing we could do about it. Good thing the adults are in charge.
well said...and I do agree..
What you need is a spine, running from Muslims is not the answer. They live on every Continent, and as much as you would like to live in a cacoon surrounded by only non Muslims, it will never happen. The answer is kill those who want to kill us and welcome those who want to join us. This struggle is not a zero sum game
At least I'm glad that you agree that if the overwhelming majority in NY don't want it they shouldn't have it. You're the first to even admit that that makes sense. We'll talk when the final numbers come out here and we'll see if you were being honest or if I'm wrong.
IF you are serious, you will do just that.
The President is the ONE man who has worked from Day ONE to keep us safe............and he's still doing it faithfully.
There is NO doubt of that. None at all.
Should we have the right to not have this if we overwhelmingly don't want it? Yes or no?
So, you're kinda using the Palestinians running the local buses argument one more time, only with a different twist.
Let's say those laws weren't in effect. I assume you think the Administration would have approved the transfer of port operations to Iran. Maybe even North Korea. Correct?
Reply if you choose, but I won't see it until tomorrow morning. I'm outta here.
For you it is about her and politics. For us it is about our survival. Play politics with people's lives in your area if you feel that is an appropriate course of action.
It may come as a shock to you but not everyone thinks the way you do. (I won't insult you by saying THANK GOD!)
There are some of us who actually think things through completely. It prevents us from glancing off the walls in a rant-fit.
There are dynamics going on here that are deeply classified and there are also some facts that we will probably never hear. We simply trust the track record of the President on this and believe he is compelled to make this decision for our best interests.
To think the President would do otherwise and forsake our National Security for any reason, is purely ignorant.
Warning. Hillary lover at post 190. Probably a longshoreman hiding behind a poorly crafted port security argument.
This isn't about running from Muslims. It's about not inviting them in to facilitate attacks against us. How about you come here and wander into the police stations and firehouses and call them cowards when they disagree with you. Then we'd see how tough you are.
We have more nationalities here than you have ever even seen and we have no problem with any of them. We just don't feel like increasing our percentages of being attacked again.
If you can't understand that then someone else must be typing for you.
Why couldn't you answer my specific question to you in 176? It's a yes or no.
You most certainly are. You want to try and answer the question that everyone is afraid to answer here or are you afraid also?
Yes or no? Should the people that live near the ports in question have the ability to overturn this if they end up a true majority or not?
How would you know what I have seen?
and we have no problem with any of them. We just don't feel like increasing our percentages of being attacked again."
Just no more Muslims huh?
As far as your comment about me saying that to the FDNY or the NYPD, that is as juvenile as it gets.
Warning. Another idiot who places political reasons above logic.
Have you voiced your opposition to the UAE operating the CSX railroad system in this country? We are all sorry NYC took a hit but there is more to the USA than NYC. Many foreign companies own US businesses that transport cargo throughout this country, and literally every community. Where should we draw the line? Do you trust any of them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.